Mercado and Mercado v Espiritu

Mercado and Mercado v. Espiritu G.R. No. L-11872 December 1, 1917 Petitioner/Plaintiffs: Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado Respondent/Defendant: Jose Espiritu, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu Facts: 

April 9, 1913 counsel for Domingo and Josefa Mercado brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan against Luis Espiritu, who died afterwards.



Since Luis Espiritu died, the complaint was amended and was filed against Jose Espiritu.



The plaintiffs alleged that they and their sisters Concepcion and Paz Mercado were the children and sole heirs of Margarita Espiritu, who is the sister of the deceased Luis Espiritu.



Margarita Espiritu died in 1897, leaving a tract of land of 48 hectares in area as her paraphernal property, which is located in the barrio of Panducot, municipality of Calumpit, Bulacan.



1910, Luis Espiritu was accused to have induced and fraudulently succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of P400 as opposed to its assessed value of P3,795.



The annulment of a deed of sale was sought by the plaintiffs.  They asserted that two of the four parties were minors (Domingo and Josefa Mercado);  Who presented themselves to be of legal age upon signing the deed of sale and before the notary public.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale is a valid contract when the minors presented themselves that they were of legal age

Ruling: Yes. The courts have laid down the rule that the sale of a real estate, made by minors who presented themselves to be of legal age, when in fact they are not, is a valid contract. Moreover, they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfilment of the obligations contracted by them, or to seek for annulment.

Ratio: The courts have laid down that such sale of real estate was still valid since it was executed by minors, who have passed the ages of puberty and adolescence, and are near adulthood, and that the minors pretended that they had already reached the age of majority. Art. 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil-interdiction are mere restrictions on the capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements. Also, these minors cannot be permitted afterwards to excuse themselves from compliance with the obligation assumed by them or seek their annulment. This is in accordance with the provisions of the law on estoppels. CC Art. 1431 Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. Rule 123, sec 68, Par. A. “Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, cannot be permitted to falsify it”.